tv [untitled] December 8, 2011 1:30pm-2:00pm PST
the department moved to this staffing model to increase our efficiencies. we were able, looking at information in the audit -- we did eliminate the 24/74 managers, and restricted it to the lower premium for other managers. i think at this time, we are still looking to see whether we can make other efficiencies. we have created a fairly detailed log, so that we are able to track or the managers are being called, what the incidents are. often, it is patient care. a regulatory body has come to the hospital. there is a sentinel event that needs to be investigated. i think that would give us better data on further reductions in that area. chairperson campos: thank you. is there anyone here from dpw? how about human resources?
i want to thank mr. grant for his patients, for waiting, and thank you for being here. >> martin grant, department of human resources, employee relations division. the budget analyst audit had relatively few recommendations for department of human resources. one involved the definition of lead pay, an issue we visited with our labor partners. we try to ensure we are getting value for all our premiums. this has been sticky, because it has gone back so far in history. of course, we are in a collective bargaining environment in which we cannot dictate the terms of a contract. we will be proposing, in the next round, the new definitions for lead pay, which will hopefully set numbers as to minimum numbers of employees you
have to supervise or direct, before you are eligible for the benefit, and to make sure we are not paying people for doing what is already required as a minimum of their job duties. that is one. when the dust settles, we will know if we have changes, and what those changes are. we will produce guidelines for our department so we have uniformity across the department. we will also be issuing some guidelines in the stand by rome -- realm about duties which are primarily administrative in nature, which is already existing language. one of the things the audit showed is that departments are not defining consistently -- different departments are using different definitions of what is primarily administrative in nature. we will offer some guidance to departments. chairperson campos: right now,
are there guidelines that govern lead pay or standby pay? >> no. the standby pay section -- assignments that are primarily in administrative in nature are not eligible for standby. when the department asks dhr for advice, we say it is primarily clerical, people in budget supervision who do not have the technical skills to turn the water off or get the computer systems running. they should be excluded. but we do not have written guidelines on that issue. chairperson campos: right now, you rely on a department calling you and asking you on that? >> we are -- we rely on the controller's office and the mayor's budget office. budget analyst -- we are not and auditing agency. we do not rely -- we do not do
audits of departments. we rely on departments to ask us for advice. we find out to the budget process, for example, that departments are out of work. we move forward with the auditors. chairperson campos: is there a reason we have not had guidelines? just wondering. >> i would not say there is a reason. we've had these provisions in place for at least four years, back when this was controlled by the board. now, it is controlled in the collective bargaining process. literally, as we go into our new payroll system, we are being forced to configure it every single practice or contract. that is, frankly, allowing us the ability to see all of these in one place and react to them. chairperson campos: i am glad you are establishing those guidelines and training departments, so there is consistency in implementation. that will be helpful.
>> i agree. chairperson campos: thank you. is there anyone from the information and technology department? any other department head who is here to speak on this item? please come forward. >> nancy holmes, director of insurance and controls. not a department head. we had three recommendations. chairperson campos: speaking to the microphone. >> we had three recommendations applicable to the puc regarding stand by and call back pay. the majority of our standby pay relates to emergency responses for water quality and water service delivery. what our water and power group has committed to doing is they are looking at operational protocols to define the levels of service where such a response is needed. once they formalize those
protocols, they would then define situations where standby pay is necessary. they did have a bit of a late start. this will take place within the next quarter or so. for our information technology services group, they disagreed with the recommendations. they felt that due to the high level of expertise needed for our networks, they would like to retain high-level positions in those areas that may require standby pay. however, what they have done in the meantime if they have eliminated the help desk and looked at cross training functions where employees can do not work and how that functionality, in an effort to eliminate unnecessary standby pay in those areas. chairperson campos: ok. >> there is still a little more work to do. what i intend, when i get back there -- i will be working with the agent for water to get more
information from the water treatment folks, seeing where they are. chairperson campos: with respect to lead pay, you agree with some of the findings? >> from what i understand, the group did agree. i did not have an update for that area. "we are doing -- our human resources group is looking at active assignment play -- pay. there is a study in progress. we do not have preliminary people in there now. chairperson campos: one of the things the report points out is that puc staff agrees that, for instance, you assign more lead plumbers than you may be need. just something to follow up on. >> will do. thank you. chairperson campos: is there anyone else who is here? there you go. thank you for being here. >> my pleasure.
good afternoon, the chair. from a realistic perspective -- john updike, director of real- estate. we have made good progress in dealing with standby for our stationary engineers. we have over 15 buildings in our portfolio. many require 24-7 monitoring, or have activities tour de force 7, everything from 3112 active police stations. -- from 311 to active police stations. a robust training program brought our engineers to a level where we have comfort with those assets to have only to engineers, one for each campus, assigned for standby. within six to nine months, we should be able to go to one for the entire combination of two campuses.
that is only made possible with collaboration of local 39, who have been supportive of our training efforts, and the benefit of present members. with regard to the management issue, we think the process is working fairly well. we have technical staff be the person who gets the immediate phone call of trouble and triage it through our engineering line staff, as opposed to a manager. i think our costs are relatively low in comparison to what other departments are seeing. lastly, the report accurately notes we have identified our immediate services group. we will be making a change, working with the mayor's office of budget. we did not do a full year, but more a half year implementation. most of that was because of the board chambers project, which we knew would require a 24-7 presence through the summer break and before, to prepare for that pretty intensive audio and video upgrade that was
associated with the disability improvements we made to the chambers. we are ready to effect that change as we turn the calendar year for media services. i hope that is helpful. amy brown hoped to be here, but had a conflict. she sends her regrets. hopefully, we can answer any other questions you may have. chairperson campos: thank you, and thank you to ms. brown for her offer. questions? again, i want to thank the budget legislative analyst for their good work armas -- on this, bringing helpful information to the departments, and for responding to the recommendations. we look forward to a follow-up on this issue in a few months, just to see where we are. again, i want to thank you for being here. is there any member of the public who would like to speak on this item?
seeing none, public comment is closed. going back to the agenda, this is an informational item, simply a hearing. so if we can continue this item to the call of the chair, so we can follow up? motion to continue. i take that without objection. is there other business before the committee? >> there is no further business. chairperson campos: thank you. meeting adjourned, and happy holidays.
the relationships between market rate development, affordable housing development, and overseeing the planning efforts we worked on for so many years. thank you. >> and thank you for your willingness to serve. are there any questions? seeing none. our next nominee is oscar grim day. he is not here today. at this time, i will answer public comment. seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed. colleagues, we have four nominees, all appointed by the supervisor of that district. is there a notion -- a motion to
move forward? if we can do that without opposition. thank you. we also have a motion to move this forward as a committee report and we can do that without opposition. please call item no. 4. >> ordinance and amending it administrative code to expand approval of the city projects mandated by the citizen's right to know. chairperson kim: the author is here. supervisor farrell: motion to continue to the call of the chair, hopefully in the january timeframe. chairperson kim: we have a motion to continue at the call of the chair, without opposition. before we do that, i will be opening up for public comment. see no public comment, public
comment is now closed. we have a motion to continue this to the call of the chair, without opposition. thank you. at this time, we will be taking a motion to convene closed session. before we do that, is there a member of the public who wishes to speak on items five through nine? seeing none, public comment is now closed. colleagues, may we entertain a motion to convene in closed session? without opposition. to the members of the public, we will now be entering closed session. we askthe